Texas High Court kills property taxs for school funding!

Jim, I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

Where would we be in 20 years if what you propose comes to fruition? While I agree public schools need a hard and long spanking, I honestly believe it to be a duty of the general populace to educate all children, poor and wealthy alike. They could, of course, do a better job of it, buts that a different discussion entirely.

Undereducated, illiterate kids shouldn’t be an option…

Just my $0.02

means that those who do not own property have no stake in the education of all of our children.

Good point HC, good point...

Cursed double post...

Actually, a "strict" reading of the Maine constitution would show that the state is not to fund public education at all; that is the responsibility of the several towns.

Yes, but in places like portland where the majority rents and the city council is in the pocket of the educations unions, those without a real stake in the tax rate set tax policy.

I would love to have education removed from property taxes and a new state tax created that ALL pay. A flat education tax. Figure what the total cost of K-12 education is and divide that by the number of taxpayers and that is the tax bill. No deductions at all. Everyone pays.

That would fix education overspending in a heartbeat.

Jim - please correct me if I'm wrong.

A landlord owns an apartment building.
He rents the apartments.
He gets a bill from the city for property taxes.
He pays the bill, using the rent monies collected from his apartments to do so.
When the bill goes up, so do the rents. He adjusts them to make sure
his costs are covered.

How do you conclude that renters pay no property taxes? Perhaps
they don't write the check to the town or city themselves,
but they do pay them nonetheless.

I rented for many years prior to buying this house, and I knew
that a sizeable portion of my rent went to property taxes. I also
knew that rents would go up whenever the property taxes did.

but make it based on your income and have it fund education.

A landlord owns an apartment building.
He rents the apartments.
He gets a bill from the city for property taxes.
He pays the bill, using the rent monies collected from his apartments to do so.
When the bill goes up, so do the rents. He adjusts them to make sure his costs are covered.

How do you conclude that renters pay no property taxes? Perhaps they don't write the check to the town or city themselves, but they do pay them nonetheless.

Let's assume we have a three story apt complex with one apartment per floor. The building is valued at $300K. In Portland that results in a tax bill of $6000. I simply do not believe that any landlord simply divides his tax bill by 3 and tacks on $2000 a year to his rent.

He is in competion with other rental properties and often must eat part of increase to stay competitive.

My property went up 189% in 'value'. Let's assume the rental above had a similiar increase. Do you think renters are going to see a multi hundred dollar a month rent increase?

I don't.

If they do see an increase, instead of blaming a greedy city, they blame the evil landlord and continue to vote for Councilor Ted, friend of the renter and creater of doggie parks.

They then lobby good old Ted to enact rent caps protecting them from the evil landlord.

No, let everyone pay an education tax. No exceptions, no deductions, everyone. If this happened, then folk would suddenly realize that the new union contract might be just a bit too generous.

I'm not saying that I disagree with the theory that a poll tax for education of some sort isn't warranted. It definitely merits a looksee.

I'm also saying, however, that renters do pay property taxes. Being a homeowner is also no guarantee that one is paying significantly more for education.

Around here, we pay close to $12K per child for education. A typical family with two children moving into Kennebunk now might purchase a home for $400K, let's say. At next year's rate of $11.35 per $1000, their yearly tax bill will be $4540.

Of that amount, 71% goes to the school district, 24% to municipal, and 5% to the county. So, in reality, they are only paying $3223 towards their childrens' education. With two kids, the real bill is $24,000. Which means that $20,777.00 is being paid for by someone else.

An additional tax for those who have children in the school system would help to balance out the inequities.

The question, of course, is how to implement this. And how much it should be.

Activist judges.

Hold on to your big fat Texas wallets! Here comes an income tax to the Lone Star State!!!!

I personally see nothing wrong with a user fee to help aid education costs. That way it would ease some of the pain for those who do not use the education services, such as retirees. and people without children.

Using Naran's formula above if parents paid a $1,500-2,000 per child per year it would more fairly parse out the tax load. There should be a user fee for athletics anyway and some schools use some sort of fee for such.

In North Yarmouth the education cost is very close to 76% of our taxes. Cost per pupil is not as high as in Kennebunk but close to $10,000/ pupil. Conviently the cost per pupil that the schools put out does not include transportation. Anyway to collect enough taxes to cover two pupils in SAD 51 would require a home valued at over $800,000.

There is great disparity and one of those is in SAD 51 where many parents come here for the schools and then leave when there kids have finished with the school system. Then the home is purchased by another set of parents and the process is repeated. However, those who are natives or retired are stuck with the high taxes forever.

A user fee would correct that inequity somewhat and make it more fair. Those using the service would pay for it and make it much more equitable. What say those legislators who frequent AMG to this idea? Why wasn't that an option during your talks on taxes last session?

Gaffer, what about those on low incomes with children? There's quite a few of them in Maine who simply could not afford to pay a fee of any substantial ammount.

That is why people should be self responsible. You shouldn't have a flock of kids until you can afford them. Why should I have to educate your kids because your to ignorant to properly plan a family.

I personally had two kids after 5 years of marriage before we had number one and then stopped at number two so we could afford to provide for them properly. Why should I have to pay for someone elses kid because his dad couldn't keep it in his knickers? If parents had to pay for all that their children used and wanted there would be less rug rats I'll bet.

As usual it boils down to more riding in the wagon than pulling it and I am darned tired of being one of the pullers. Tell me how is it to be a wagon rider? Are you proud of it?

I'm also saying, however, that renters do pay property taxes. Being a homeowner is also no guarantee that one is paying significantly more for education.

Around here, we pay close to $12K per child for education. A typical family with two children moving into Kennebunk now might purchase a home for $400K, let's say. At next year's rate of $11.35 per $1000, their yearly tax bill will be $4540.

Of that amount, 71% goes to the school district, 24% to municipal, and 5% to the county. So, in reality, they are only paying $3223 towards their childrens' education. With two kids, the real bill is $24,000. Which means that $20,777.00 is being paid for by someone else.

An additional tax for those who have children in the school system would help to balance out the inequities.

The question, of course, is how to implement this. And how much it should be.

Ah, but you forget out tax relief, LD1. Remember, the state is to pay 55% eventually. Now that same couple with two kids gets a two kid tax credit on their income tax so in addition to not paying their fair share locally, they also do not pay their fair share to the state. :wink:

I don't think a surcharge of $1500 or $2000 a child would be necessary, depending on the district. More like $1000 a kid, per year.

For years we've been trying to get the board to implement user fees for athletics, student parking, and all manner of non-academic extra-curricular events, as well as for All Day Kindergarten. It's like treading through molasses. So far we've gotten nowhere, although I think the day is coming.

You can bet if a reasonable user fee was implemented that some would think twice about making so many rugrats. I personally think that it is fair that the user gets to pay the greater amount. Whether it be for education or going to a hockey game, if you comsume than you pay a fee. Those who chose not to participate ought not to have pay. None of you would want to pay so others could attend a Red Sox game or go to Sugarloaf skiing, why should it be any different?

The usual argument (not from me) is that those people who are older already benefitted from the educational system, and so it's not unreasonable for them to pay something in. Like Social Security.

However, I see nothing wrong with an age limit, like the Social Security pay ceiling. Maybe one achieves the age of 65 and no longer has to pay the portion of taxes related to education expenses. Just a thought.

And you should be kind enough to die before your Social Security contributions are exhausted. Why should I have to pay to support you because the life expectancy has increased since you made your paltry contribution.

I make you a deal Gaffer, you send me your Social Security checks and I'll pay your property taxes. You can retain whatever you are entitled to based on investing your contributions at a rate of return equal to the CPI over the years.

And you should be kind enough to die before your Social Security contributions are exhausted. Why should I have to pay to support you because the life expectancy has increased since you made your paltry contribution.

It's not Gaffers fault that the Federal Government took his money and did a terrible job investing it. He had no choice in the matter. If he was able to invest that money he paid into the program, then you would not have to pay for his retirement.

What if we forego all capital improvements in our school district for a year. Let’s say we postpone $100,000 worth of heating and cooling upgrades and that needed roof repair on the middle school. Take that $100,00, call it a “Savings offset plan”, divide that by the tax paying members of the school district (assume 2000 taxpayers for the sake of this example) and each district member would pay his fair share of $5000. Voila, problem solved without raising taxes. See how that works.

My math is off, but proper cihering has nothing to do with my Savings Offset Plan.

The irony is that that Court sided with the Plaintiffs, the various school districts.

I think the decision was unexpected; esp. where the court stuck its nose into efficiency and achievement.

This is a huge decision and EDPUNDITS will analyze it to death....my guess it was uniquely Texan...note the newspaper said REPUBLICAN court...hmmm.

I'm curious as to what kind of system the legislature will come up with, and whether it has relevance for Maine as a replacement for HR1, should the Auburn taxpayer's groups extract enough grounds from the Texas decision to sue the State.

You do realize there is a difference. SS was a paid benefit and the payment one receives is taxed twice. We have folk with kids who pay absolutely nothing but who are VERY vocal as the the education juionr is to receive, on someone elses dime.

I believe everyone should pay an education tax. If everyone did, there would be a lot more interest in where the money goes and what it buys.

I have a better idea. Drop whatever automatic pay and benefit increases are scheduled for the unions for a year. You will save a lot more and have less effect on Juniors education.

Someone else said it:

Isnt this judicial activism at its most egregious?

The state, the towns the people have had a school funding program for decades, and the court says "nope. Scrap it or close the schools".

Chris.

It could well be. I am not familiar with Texas statutes and their constitution.

It's not an individual parents fault that the school systems are poorly managed and have multiple rediculous federal and state mandates either. You don't understand Social Security. The money is not "invested". It is a wealth transfer program. pure and simple. Those that are now over 70 will recieve many times what their money, if "invested" would have returned them. It's only those that are retiring now and in the future that are getting small or negative returns. And that is because the 'greatest generation' has taken higher and higher benefits, way out of proportion to thier contibution to the system.

I certainly believe that education spending is out of control. But it riles me when Seniors suggest that parents should pay for 100% of their kids education, at the same time they are expecting their Social Security 'entitlement' check to be funded by the sweat of those same parents.